[spring] Re: following-up discussion on draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

IMHO, we don’t need to formally update all those other documents — maybe
just the one that initially defined the term.  The important thing here is
that it can be done with a single document: the other documents wouldn’t
need to be republished.

Alvaro.

On August 14, 2024 at 5:32:32 AM, [e-mail] ([e-mail])
wrote:

Hi Acee,

If the meaning of MSD is expanded to "Maximum State Depth" or something
else, the existing RFCs(e.g, RFC8664/RFC8491/RFC8476) which already
interpret MSD as Maximum SID Depth in the text would be effected.

All of them needs a update if doing so?


Yao


Original
*From: *AceeLindem <[e-mail]>
*To: *刘尧00165286;
*Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
*Date: *2024年08月13日 22:49
*Subject: **[spring] Re: following-up discussion on
draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem*
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
Perhaps, maximum it could be generalized to “Maximum State Depth” with the
existing types.
Acee

On Aug 13, 2024, at 05:27, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Hi Jeff,


Yes, strictly speaking, the meaning of some existing MSD types do not fully
conform to the original “Maximum SID Depth” definition (but it has to be
admitted that all of them are related to the number of SIDs/labels to some
extend), and we're using them without misunderstanding.


Thanks,

Yao



_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]


*From: *JeffTantsura <[e-mail]>
*To: *刘尧00165286;
*Cc: *Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>;Alexander Vainshtein <
[e-mail]>;spring <[e-mail]>;
*Date: *2024年08月13日 04:19
*Subject: **[spring] Re: following-up discussion on
draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem*
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
Hi Yao,
I think as long as the new type name is coherent, MSD could be used as a
generic acronym without much harm.
I don’t see any ambiguity with the new MSD-types defined -
https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types

Thanks,
Jeff

On Aug 1, 2024, at 17:35, [e-mail] wrote:

Hi Eric, Jeff and Sasha,


Thank you all for the interest and comments on
draft-liu-spring-aggregate-header-limit-problem during the presentation on
last week's SPRING meeting.

Here're the following-up responses to the comments and some related
information on this work.


Comments from Eric:

Refering to RFC9098 instead of RFC8883 on aggregate header limit.

Response:

We've checked RFC9098 after the meeting, but haven't found any formal
description on aggregate header limit. So we still have to refer to RFC8883
when it comes to the definition of aggregate header limit. But RFC9098
provides some detailed information on intermediate systems processing Layer
4 information, in this case it needs  process the entire IPv6 header chain
as well. We'll add RFC9098 as a reference for this scenario.


Comments from Jeff&Sasha:

MSD(IGP/BGP/YANG) has provided a mechanism for node's processing limit info
advertisement and collection, and it is well defined, a new MSD type for
AHL or similar mechanism can meet the requirement.

Response:

In fact, we've already written a draft
draft-liu-lsr-aggregate-header-limit, and the basic idea is defining a new
MSD type so the existing mechanism for MSD can all be leveraged.

It has been discussed on the LSR list and presented in LSR IETF119, but the
objection of this approach is that, AHL is a none-routing info, it should
not be advertised along with the route advertisement like MSD(although MSD
already did that). A suggestion is to leverage the non-routing information
signaling mechanism in IGP (draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance,
RFC6823) for AHL advertisement.

You can find the discussion around the this draft in the lsr minutes [
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-119-lsr-202403210300/#signaling-aggregate-header-size-limit-via-igp>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-119-lsr-202403210300/#signaling-aggregate-header-size-limit-via-igp]
and the chatlog [
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/chatlog-119-lsr-202403211300/] on IETF119.



Thanks,

Yao







_______________________________________________
spring mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]